|
|
|
|
Joined: Aug 2003
Posts: 2,097
Hard-core CEG\'er
|
Hard-core CEG\'er
Joined: Aug 2003
Posts: 2,097 |
When installing, do you need a new crank bolt?
98 E0 SVT with some stuff
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 2,397
Hard-core CEG'er
|
|
Hard-core CEG'er
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 2,397 |
Yes the crankbolt is torque to yield and should not be reused. I did use my old crankbolt to help draw the new pulley on though, then took it off and put the new one in and torqued it down. You can get a new crankbolt from Ford for about 8 bucks I think.
Formerly known as Sneaku
I MISS MY BABY!!!
'00 Blk CSVT #1087/2150 built 12/23/99
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jul 2000
Posts: 1,625
Hard-core CEG\'er
|
|
Hard-core CEG\'er
Joined: Jul 2000
Posts: 1,625 |
Originally posted by SpeedTeufel:
Originally posted by cawong11:
On my SVT, I really didn't notice much difference between the stock crank damper and the DMD. The obvious side effect of the DMD was a longer spool up time in the lower rpms, but that's about it. Above 4000rpm, it was the same as stock. One small observation I did hear on my SVT was the mechanical tone of the engine changed. 
.....BTW, I'm running the stock crank damper. 
Dude, now you tell me after I order one from you! 
Here's the thing, as I mentioned before, I didn't like the increase in spool up time so I went back to the stock damper. No negative side effects of the DMD, though, so it's not a wrong choice. 
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2002
Posts: 98
CEG\'er
|
|
CEG\'er
Joined: Sep 2002
Posts: 98 |
Originally posted by cawong11:
Originally posted by SpeedTeufel:
Originally posted by cawong11:
On my SVT, I really didn't notice much difference between the stock crank damper and the DMD. The obvious side effect of the DMD was a longer spool up time in the lower rpms, but that's about it. Above 4000rpm, it was the same as stock. One small observation I did hear on my SVT was the mechanical tone of the engine changed.
.....BTW, I'm running the stock crank damper.
Dude, now you tell me after I order one from you!
Here's the thing, as I mentioned before, I didn't like the increase in spool up time so I went back to the stock damper. No negative side effects of the DMD, though, so it's not a wrong choice.
Was just kidding man, I would have went with the DMD anyway because I put approx. 130 miles a day on my car. If I didn't drive it that much I would'nt have changed it.
BTY I got it in the mail this weekend I will be installing it, wish me luck.
98.5 Black SVT
65 Red Mustang coupe 289 hi-po
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 344
CEG\'er
|
|
CEG\'er
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 344 |
Originally posted by ScottK:
Any insider info or unpublished engine failures lead to this change in thinking? Any new tidbits from procyon or Terry???
Nope. I still stand by my opinion that main intent of the DMD is to address NVH issues. I know that it is much more expensive than the regular damper. That's probably why it's only used on higher priced or higher class vehicles where the customer expects a smoother, quieter engine. As such, it's not standard equip. on the Taurus, Escape, or Cougar.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
